Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs Prof. M. V on 24 May, 2018
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 478 of 2018 24.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
r Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 480 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
r Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 478 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 479 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 481 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 482 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
SI Sushil Kumar, IO, PS. Gagret, present in person alongwith case records.
Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record. List on 30th May, 2018, on which date, fresh status report shall be filed by the State, as also the parties shall remain present in the Court, including the complainant. Till then, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of order dated 21.04.2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:32 :::HCHP .
Cr.MP(M) No. 614 of 201824.05.2018 Present: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant/appellant.
Cr.MP(M) No. 614 of 2018Heard the learned Additional Advocate General.
Taking into consideration the averments made in the application, as also the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, as arguable points are involved in the appeal, accordingly leave to appeal is granted. Application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal No. ___________of 2018 Be registered. Admit.
Let bailable warrants in the sum of `25,000/ with one surety in the like amount be issued against the respondent returnable for 16th August, 2018.
List on 16th August, 2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CMP No. 4676 of 2018 in CWP No. 8761 of 2012 24.05.2018 Present: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner/nonapplicant.
M/s B.N. Misra and Vandana Misra, Advocates, for the respondents/applicants.
CMP No. 4676 of 2018Taking into consideration the averments made in the application, as also the submissions made by Mr. B.N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants, this application is allowed and three months further time is granted to comply with the judgment dated 22.03.2008.
At this stage, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that as extremely short notices are being given to the petitioner for appearing before the appropriate authority and that too at Mumbai, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is residing at Una, he prays that as and when the petitioner is required to appear before the appropriate authority, then some reasonable time should be granted in this regard.
Mr. B.N. Misra, learned counsel, assures the Court that as and when the petitioner will be required to appear before the appropriate authority, at least 15 days' advance notice shall be granted in this regard.
It is clarified that interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue in terms of judgment dated 22.03.2018.
Application stands disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
C.R. No. 262 of 201724.05.2018 Present: Mr. Kishore Pundir, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the respondent.
On the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, list on 14th June, 2018, to enable him to have positive instructions in the matter.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 3053 of 2009 a/w CWPs. No. 4890 of 2009, 64 & 131 of 2016.
24.05.2018 Present: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWPs. No. 131 & 64 of 2016 and for private respondents in CWP No. 4890 of 2009.
Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP No. 4890 of 2009 and for private respondents in CWP No. 3053 of 2009.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents State.
As prayed for, list on 21st June, 2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
FAO No. 552 of 201724.05.2018 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 21st June, 2018.
As jointly prayed for, list on 21st June, 2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
FAO No. 553 of 201724.05.2018 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Ms. Richa Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Parshant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 states that separate FAO has been filed on behalf of the claimants, also assailing the same award which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
As jointly prayed for, list on 27th June, 2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
FAO No. 553 of 201724.05.2018 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Ms. Richa Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Parshant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 states that separate FAO has been filed on behalf of the claimants, also assailing the same award which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
As jointly prayed for, list on 27th June, 2018.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 394 of 201024.05.2018 Present: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel submits that as he has been recently engaged by the petitionersBoard, he may be granted some time to assist the Court. List after three weeks, as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 663 of 201224.05.2018 Present: Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, vice counsel for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. None for respondent No. 7.
Mr. Narender ..
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel submits that as he has been recently engaged by the petitionersBoard, he may be granted some time to assist the Court. List after three weeks, as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 663 of 201224.05.2018 Present: Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, vice counsel for the petitioner.
M/s Desh Raj Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Kamal Kant Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. None for respondent No. 7.
Mr. Surender Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.8.
Mr. Surender Thakur, learned counsel submits that Mr. R.S. Chandel, who is to argue the matter is not available. On his request, matter is adjourned. List on 20 th June, 2018, as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 2428 of 201224.05.2018 Present: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, vice Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, vice counsel for the respondents.
As prayed for, list on 28th June, 2018.
r (Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 24, 2018
(bhupender)
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP
.
CWP No. 3441 of 2012 a/w CWP Nos. 3442, 3444, 3878,3879,3880, 3881, 3983, 3884,3885,4084 and 9214 of 2015 24.05.2018 Present: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in all the petitions.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent(s) in all the petitions.
Records received. Learned counsel for the parties pray for and are permitted to go through the same. List on 14 th June, 2018, as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 4586 of 201224.05.2018 Present: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4.
None for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Report of the learned Mediator suggests that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement in the matter.
Accordingly, case is ordered to be listed for hearing on ___________.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned Mediator.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
CWP No. 6588 of 201224.05.2018 Present: M/s Gaurav Gautam and Varun Rana, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for None for the respondent.
Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case has to be argued by Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel, who is out of station. He prays that the case may be taken up after two weeks. ReReport of the learned Mediator suggests that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement in the matter. Accordingly, case is ordered to be listed for hearing on ___________.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned Mediator.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 24, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
In A.P. Pollution Control Board II Vs. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 62, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
(Two Judges) "3. Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a "party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference in 1977 as under:
"All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs."
Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.
4. Adverting to the above right declared in the aforesaid Resolution, in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India ( 2000(7) Scale 34 ( at p.124), Kirpal J observed:
"Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....."
5. There is therefore need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP.
Competing human rights to healthy environment and sustainable development:
There is building up, in various countries, a concept that right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to 'life'.
7. Our Supreme Court was one of the first r Courts to develop the concept of right to 'healthy environment' as part of the right to "life"
under Article 21 of our Constitution. [ See Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India ( 1984(3) SCC 161)].
This principle has now been adopted in various countries today."
In Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 572, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
(Two Judges) "Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, an oppression. The primary use to which the water is put being drinking, it would be mocking the nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentally placed in an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for nondrinking purposes. A river has to flow through some territory; and it would be travesty of justice if the upperriparian States were to use its ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
water for purposes like irrigation, denying the lower riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents."
In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 664, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
(Three Judges) "247. As per Clause 3 of the final decision of the Tribunal published in the Gazette notification of India dated 12th December, 1979, the State of Rajasthan has been allocated 0.5 MAF of Narmada water in national interest from Sardar Sarovar Dam. This was allocated to the State of Rajasthan to utilise the same for irrigation and drinking purposes in the arid and droughtprone areas of Jalore and Barmer districts of Rajasthan situated on the international border with Pakistan, which have no other available source of water.
248. Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be served only by providing source of water where there is none. The Resolution of the U.N.O. in 1977 to which India is a signatory, during the United Nations Water Conference resolved unanimously inter alia as under:
"All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs."::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP
.
In Susetha Vs. State of T.N. and others, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 543, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
(Two Judges) "17. We may, however, notice that whereas natural water storage resources are not only required to be protected but also steps are required to be taken for restoring the same if it has fallen in disuse. The same principle, in our opinion, cannot be applied in relation to artificial tanks.
18. In L. Krishnan (supra), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had been dealing with natural resources providing for water storage facility and in that view of the matter the State was directed to take all possible steps both preventive as also removal of unlawful encroachments so as to maintain the ecological balance.
19. The matter has also been considered at some details by this Court in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi (supra), wherein again while dealing with natural resources, it was opined:
"This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust, Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the state holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP .
of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a distinction between the government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources...."
[Emphasis supplied] Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case has to be argued by Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel, who is out of station. He prays that the case may be taken up after two weeks. ReReport of the learned Mediator suggests that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement in the matter. Accordingly, case is ordered to be listed for hearing on ___________.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned Mediator.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP